The European Union is pushing Google to allow third-party AI assistants equal access on Android devices, potentially breaking Google's lock on the platform's AI layer. Google argues this represents unwarranted regulatory interference in product design, setting up the next major battle in EU tech regulation.
This is the next front in EU tech regulation—not just app stores and browsers, but AI assistants. If Europe forces Android open, it could reshape how AI reaches billions of smartphone users.
The EU's Digital Markets Act (DMA) has already forced Apple to allow third-party app stores on iOS and required both Apple and Google to offer browser choice screens. Now regulators are extending that logic to AI assistants, arguing that Google's Gemini assistant has an unfair advantage on Android because it's deeply integrated into the operating system.
Google's counterargument is that AI assistants aren't like browsers or payment systems. They require deep integration with the OS, access to sensors, and tight coupling with system APIs to work well. Forcing open access would either compromise the user experience or require Google to expose internal APIs that could create security and privacy risks.
I'm sympathetic to both sides here. I've built products on platforms, and I know how frustrating it is when the platform owner gives itself advantages that third-party developers can't access. But I've also seen what happens when platforms are forced to expose deep system access—it creates security vulnerabilities and maintenance nightmares.
The EU's position is that Google made Android the dominant mobile platform, and with that dominance comes responsibility to treat third-party services fairly. If Google wants Gemini to access your location, calendar, and messages to provide personalized assistance, then Amazon's Alexa, Anthropic's Claude, or any other AI assistant should have the same access.
On paper, that sounds reasonable. In practice, it's complicated. Different AI assistants have different privacy policies, different data retention practices, and different security standards. Giving them all equal access to sensitive user data requires trust that not all companies have earned.
Google's "unwarranted intervention" language is predictable corporate pushback, but the underlying concern about product design is real. AI assistants work best when they're deeply integrated. They need to see what app you're in, what you're looking at, what you just said, and what you're likely to want next. That level of integration is hard to expose through standardized APIs.
But the EU has a point too. Google has used its platform position to advantage its own services repeatedly—in search, maps, browsers, and now AI. Without regulatory pressure, there's no incentive for Google to create a level playing field.
What makes this fight particularly important is timing. We're at the beginning of the AI assistant era, not the end. The decisions made now about how open or closed these platforms are will determine the competitive landscape for the next decade. If Google can lock down Android for Gemini, and Apple does the same for iOS with Siri, then third-party AI assistants will struggle to reach users regardless of how good they are.
The EU has precedent for forcing platform openness. The DMA has already changed how iOS and Android work in Europe—third-party payment systems, alternative app stores, browser choice screens. Those changes were controversial and technically challenging, but they happened. The same could happen with AI assistants.
What's different is the speed of AI development. Browser technology was mature when the EU forced browser choice. AI assistants are evolving rapidly, and the APIs needed to support them are still being figured out. Forcing standardization now might lock in technical decisions that look dumb in two years.
My prediction is that Google will fight this hard, lose eventually, and implement a grudging compromise that gives third-party AI assistants access but makes it just difficult enough that most users stick with Gemini anyway. That's been the pattern with other EU interventions—compliance that technically follows the rules while preserving the incumbent's advantage.
But even a grudging compromise matters. It creates an opening for competitors. If OpenAI can offer a ChatGPT assistant on Android with the same system access as Gemini, some users will switch. If Anthropic can integrate Claude into Android phones, it gets distribution it couldn't otherwise access. Competition becomes possible in a way it isn't today.
The technology is impressive. Google's AI work is genuinely world-class, and Gemini is a capable assistant. But capability alone shouldn't determine market position when the company also controls the platform. The EU is right to push for openness, even if the implementation will be messy and the results imperfect. Sometimes a flawed level playing field is better than a well-designed monopoly.
